No Mongo - Sorry - you're making more statements that are not true. I don't think anybody being "forced" to have insurance. I never agreed with the mandate. And I've never said here in any possible way that people should be forced to. However I do believe there is currently a conflict because then it does force people to be cared for with no opportunity for cost recovery. Surely as a business owner/person, you'd agree that it's not a good thing for a government to force you to provide services but know you won't be paid, right?
Ahhhh, so we're in the WMH is bored wanting to argue mode. Have fun, maybe later, got work to do. quick synopsis of above - 1 - that's nice, it's how insurance works too. We're talking about those without insurance. 2 - nope. 3 - nope. Until I meet my end of the agreement they aren't on the hook for shit. Still a moot point as I was forced into this contract that I do not want. 4 - You haven't proven shit other than your opinion as usual Buh bye now snookums.
The average net profit of the insurance community is about 3 to 4%. Of that, 1% is derived from premiums while the rest is profit from the required reserves set aside that is required by law. In other words, profits on the money that is used to pay claims. Hospitals tend to run close to about 2 to 3% margin.
Sorry Mongo, but you're full of shit here. 1) Never ever said people should be forced to buy insurance. 2) I really don't give a rats ass whatever bullshit crap you try and say to try and argue that your policy is "providing nothing". It's not just bored and arguing. It's complete bullshit. They are NOW LEGALLY responsible for costs. Whether those costs happen or not who knows. Even financially, those liabilities actually matter. That's what businesses are based on. You disagree and want to make your own utopia, great. Move to utopia.
Majority? Maybe. Overwhelming? Not when they have to pay. Most people just want affordable health care. Insurance is kryptonite to affordable without subsidies. Subsidies are a politically correct way of describing taking from your neighbor.
No, I believe Overwhelming Majority. Remember, I wasn't talking about who loves or hates the ACA, who loves or hates single payer, etc. I was just saying that the overwhelming majority of people would oppose having NO insurance or coverage of any type - specifically at least catastrophic coverage. That the overwhelming majority of people would not accept solely a "pay for service" only solution.
BTW, that statement is not an endorsement of subsidies, etc. Right now, federal law mandates that providers must provide at least some types of care - without addressing any possible way for providers to be paid for that service. It is essentially conscription of those providers. The ethical dilemma is that it seems morally wrong to deny potentially life saving care to people who need it to prevent death. I don't happen to believe we should just let people with catastrophic injuries die if they can't pay but I also don't believe it's right to force providers to just eat 100% of the cost. All taxes are just a politically correct way of describing taking from your neighbor. But I also don't want government single payer. And I do want to try and prefer the fact that the US leads the world in life saving, life extending medical care - bar none.
Mongo -- you get cancer and you damn sure as well are going to find $6k in the myriad toys and assets you have (you are clearly not "poor" despite the many attempts to claim so: an RV, jeep, motorcycles, a home, a rolex, a wife with a valuable company, etc.). The alternative would be in the 10s if not 100s of thousands OOP. Ergo, your argument of no benefit to carrying insurance is simply not accurate. Besides, take the penalty (2.5% of little is little, right?), then try and rely on your advance directives* to make sure no one tries to cure you. *Better have an alternative plan.
Serious question...do the statistics determining the number of uninsured include Medicaid recipients?